"I am Delhi Delhi-based advocate specializing in tax litigation and advisory, especially to corporates. I represent taxpayers at all tax tribunals and High Courts. we also undertake advisory in Mergers and Acquisitions matters. My contact details are vgrmc2018@gmail.com. 9811728992."
ITAT Hyderabad held that CPC cannot make adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee as mandated by law. The Tribunal quashed the tax adjustment denying concessional tax benefits because the mandatory opportunity of response was not provided.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.
The Chennai ITAT held that transfer pricing benchmarking cannot ignore extraordinary business circumstances arising from the shutdown of a major customer. The Tribunal upheld deletion of TP adjustment after accepting that sale of goods to the AE was a distress sale triggered by Nokia India’s closure.
The ITAT Mumbai set aside the CIT(A) order after finding that crucial survey findings and Tally data relating to accommodation entries were not properly examined. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh examination of the transactions and related evidence.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated after four years without fresh evidence. The court held such reopening invalid when based on existing records and no failure of disclosure.
The court examined whether reassessment could proceed without any incriminating material from search. It held that absence of such material vitiates jurisdiction, leading to quashing of proceedings.
The court held that expenditure on replacement of independent machinery cannot be treated as revenue when it results in a new asset or advantage. It set aside the Tribunal’s order for relying on a precedent later overturned by the Supreme Court and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The issue was whether high-turnover companies can be compared with a smaller software service provider. The Tribunal held that companies with disproportionately large turnover must be excluded as they distort comparability due to scale advantages.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 beyond the six-year limitation under the old law is invalid. It clarified that the first proviso to section 149 bars such reopening even under the amended regime.
The Court held that Tribunal remand is not a fresh reference under transfer pricing law. Hence, limitation expired earlier, entitling the assessee to refund.
